21–30 of 433 posts
Does it matter?
It feels like most web3 discussion is just discussion and none of the core parts exist at all…. and some folks just threw nfts and crypto currency into the bucket to have something concrete to point to.
I don’t have a problem with discussion about meta discussion but I’m also skeptical that it matters/ that this is just meta about meta …. with nobody doing any of this web3 stuff.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A centralization is otherwise no really desirable for many users. I’d argue the opposite-the benefits of decentralization are too abstract for most people to appreciate.
I'd argue the opposite-the benefits of decentralization are clear and concise. edit: Central point of failures, ownership, privacy, etc etc.
The original web was more decentralized than what web3 proponents are selling, but over time users consistently chose a few major services. Why will they switch back and what will avoid that repeating again?
Serious question: What problem does web3 or decentralization fix? - Oligopoly of the hyperscalers -> rent server from small provider like ovh/hetzner/netcup (there is plenty). The reason AWS, Azure and GCP are so popular is because people don't care. - Privavy intrusions -> Adblocker/DNS Blocker/Turn off JS/Use browser settings This won't be fixed by web3, ad monetization and tracking won't magically stop. They exist…
I don't think the point is to fix anything; it's to have remixes/alternatives to what's already out there. However, using AWS for some things and pinning stuff to IPFS and blockchain for others does prove convenient (I don't have to worry about egress costs w/ IPFS for example)
IPFS isn’t magic: you have to pay for hosting somewhere - you can use it like a CDN to pick cheaper networks but that’s maintenance optimization.
I would separate the crypto craze from Web3 to be honest. On its face it doesn't really have to do with crypto currency at all. A centralization is otherwise no really desirable for many users.
> A centralization is otherwise no really desirable for many users. I’d argue the opposite-the benefits of decentralization are too abstract for most people to appreciate.
In reality, if cryptocurrency takes power from the elite they will make it illegal and arrest 95% of its users who are incapable of learning how to mask their network participation. This is not reassuring for an idea whose decentralized powers are predicated on mass adoption.
Crypto has only existed during the greatest and longest bull market of all time. Jury is still out on whether it can survive a prolonged bear market. Web3 consequently is also bound by this. If people are still interested in Web3 when crypto goes down 10% YoY forever then maybe there’s some inherent value there.
however, the fact that too many people seem to think that there is in fact a connection between web3 and cryptocurrency just adds to the smell.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd argue the opposite-the benefits of decentralization are clear and concise. edit: Central point of failures, ownership, privacy, etc etc.
Can you enumerate them?
Central point of failures, ownership, privacy, etc etc. Obvious stuff I don't want to ramble about.
Only HN would try to downplay decentralization, something we know the benefits of, only to bash crypto/web3.
Crypto is really great if you’re a drug dealer or some other kind of criminal.
I would separate the crypto craze from Web3 to be honest. On its face it doesn't really have to do with crypto currency at all. A centralization is otherwise no really desirable for many users.
“Web3” is a marketing campaign created to drum up demand for cryptocurrencies. That’s why the sales people blow off technical concerns claiming that the answer is to buy the tokens they conveniently already own so you can then maybe help build a system which actually works later.
I dont disagree there are a number of less than scrupulous people floating around selling worthless tokens, BUT to solely focus on them is to ignore a real core of interesting computer science advances.